That is a huge problem. Do you have any suggestions for how to identify what groups might be more amenable? I am guessing the lawyers who skew younger are most likely to be deep in transgender ideology.

It’s not just younger lawyers who are the problem. Corporations and Biglaw firms alike are cashing in on Big Gender and woke virtue signaling as solutions to their difficult problems. They realized they could get a lot of brownie points by putting pronouns in signatures and having woke speakers come in to spew woke bullshit on gender identity, sexual orientation, race, etc. without providing any solutions or even clearly naming the problem. The kind of people who say high level shit like “People of color and the LGBTQ community are disproportionately impacted by COVID/poverty” without explaining who and what they mean and why, because they merely want to push that narrative for their own agenda and companies pretend to buy into it for virtue signaling purposes because it costs so little relative to making actual changes to their employment and business practices.

Wokeness is a huge snake oil industry, and gets these entities lauded by the same “socialist” types who have otherwise declared them to be the enemy. Companies and law firms seek to essentially buy up certifications from orgs like the Human Rights Campaign that certify just how great they are for the “LGBTQ community” or “People of Color” whatever other bullshit grouping of people. Look up the Mansfield Rule for example. It appears good on the surface but there are zero standards and it becomes increasingly easier to comply because they keep adding groups that count as diverse but the 30% threshold never changes. They keep talking about how important the standards are without saying what they are (i.e. how they even determine “meaningful consideration” of diverse candidates in hiring or some other job decision). They don’t say if it’s measuring the pool of applicants or measuring the select group that gets sent to the hiring manager. In effect it’s all just opportunities for companies and firms to create good optics.

So in this environment, firms will not want to touch our issue because they will be painted as being anti-LGBT and will become radioactive and drive away corporate clients that are trying to do their own virtue-signaling. This is very different than the era of Bush v. Gore, for example, when you had two BigLaw heavyweight firms on the opposite sides, that later joined together in furtherance of gay rights for the Perry case on same-sex marriage in California.

This is a huge institutional problem that creates the false appearance of a moral right and wrong side to each issue, when it was and always has been about $$$$. Even worse, the Pritzkers are now bankrolling Northwestern’s Law School and created a legal clinic for “trans rights” (where they use the clinic to do things like get dangerous males into women’s prisons) and other law schools are doing this too. They have positioned themselves as the underdogs, not us.

My best guess would be to find a plaintiff-side firm that does class actions against big companies. I don’t know that they’d be willing to touch it, but if the momentum initially comes from going after the medical side of this, I think there would be takers not because this is righteous, but because it is lucrative. Unfortunately this makes it really hard for gay people to get ahead of this UNLESS those med malpractice lawsuits center gay to trans/non-binary conversion as a key issue. I really wish Rand Paul had mentioned that Keira Bell is a lesbian.